Is MDHI going to make it?

Helowriter,

From what I have heard from Fort Rucker, the reason that the Army is
retiring the OH-58s is that they are worn out. In peace time the life
of these birds could be stretched out. But since 2001, OH-58s have
been logging more hours than a New York taxi cab. Add to this
attrition from battle damage and metal fatigue on 20 year old airframes
and you start running out of flying helicopters.

Comparing the OH-58 (based on the 206B) to the Bell Model 407 is like
comparing a 2005 VW Bug to a 1955 VW Bug. They may look similar, but
they are very different. Other than fasteners, there is probably less
than 5% commonality of parts.

Take care,

CTR

It should be noted that all the US Army OH-58Ds were rebuilt (OK, very
extensively rebuilt and modified) OH-58As. The rebuild process took the
aircraft down to the frames, replaced most of the sheet metal and a lot of
the composites, built new cowlings, fuel storage, rear compartments, tail
booms, and all new dynamic components, as well as completely replacing all
the instrumentation, avionics, and powerplants. But they started out as
OH-58As. The only "new" from the skids up OH-58D helicopters were built
under contract to Taiwan.

Jim

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Helowriter,

From what I have heard from Fort Rucker, the reason that the Army is
retiring the OH-58s is that they are worn out. In peace time the life
of these birds could be stretched out. But since 2001, OH-58s have
been logging more hours than a New York taxi cab. Add to this
attrition from battle damage and metal fatigue on 20 year old airframes
and you start running out of flying helicopters.

Comparing the OH-58 (based on the 206B) to the Bell Model 407 is like
comparing a 2005 VW Bug to a 1955 VW Bug. They may look similar, but
they are very different. Other than fasteners, there is probably less
than 5% commonality of parts.

Take care,

CTR

The Saudi 406s based on the OH-58D were new-build too.

Understand the evolution, but I suspect the MELB-derivative for ARH is
also going to be pretty far from the OH-6A. The MELB is supposed to
have a better aft cabin door, and we haven't seen what the Boeing/MDI
ARH cabin yet.

The crashworthiness comparison has always seemed to favor the OH-6A
over the 58A/C. I don't believe either airframe has gotten a whole
lot better since those first models. You can argue that 58Ds have just
gone through safety enhancements including some seat improvements. I'm
curious to see how both teams address the crashworthiness issue.

HW